IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No.246/2021 (filed on 25/10/2021)
Petitioner : Sr. Jino, Mother Superior, St. Joseph
Convent, Neendoor P.O,
Kottayam- 686601.
(Adv. Shiby Alex)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Manager, Cherupushpam Agencies,
Cherupushpam Building, Market, Pala.
2) Manager, Voltas Limited, Voltas House,
A Block, Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Road, Chinjupokli, Mumbai – 400033.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows,
The complainant had purchased a Voltas Combo Refrigerator cum Freezer on 16-12-2020 for an amount of Rs.31900/- from the first opposite party. The refrigerator was manufactured by the second opposite party. The refrigerator become faulty on 11-01-2021 and the items kept inside the fridge were damaged. The matter was informed to the first opposite party. Authorized Technician of the second opposite party visited and inspected the refrigerator. They had replaced some spare parts. Again the refrigerator showed the same complaints. On 26-01-2021 the complainant was informed to the first opposite party. The technician from the second opposite party visited and did some repair works. But again the items stored in the refrigerator got damaged and water was seen leaking out from the refrigerator. On 05-03-2021 the matter was informed to the first opposite party. A technician came and did some repair works. The same complaints were again repeated and on 30-04-2021, the authorized technician inspected the refrigerator and he was convinced about the complaint. The authorized technician informed that the refrigerator was having manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired by them. Within four months of purchase, the refrigerator was repaired 5 times, still the refrigerator was not functioning well. Then the complainant approached the first opposite party and demanded for a replacement of the product or refund of money. The opposite parties were not willing to refund the amount or to give a replacement of the product. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite parties failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite parties were set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A6 documents.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
-
-
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Voltas Combo Refrigerator cum Freezer on 16-12-2020 from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.31,900/-. The Refrigerator was manufactured by the second opposite party.
Exhibit A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 16-12-2020 issued by the first opposite party for the sale of Voltas 400 CTR FC HT SDA Combo for a total amount of Rs.31900/-. Exhibit A2 is the Service Report dated 16-02-2021 issued by the technician of Voltas Authorized Service Provider which shows that the fault found was no ‘cooling’ and action taken was ‘thermostat Adjusted done under warranty’. Exhibit A3 is the Service Report dated 05-03-2021 issued by the technician of the Voltas Authorized Service Provider which shows that the fault found was ‘over cool’ and action taken was ‘thermostat adjust checking under warranty’. Exhibit A4 is the Legal Notice dated 18-06-2021 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
From the above discussed evidence it is clear that the Refrigerator Cum Freezer purchased on 16-12-2020 became faulty on 16-02-2021 and 05-03-2021 and the fault of the Refrigerator was not rectified by the Authorized Service provider of the second opposite party. The product supplied by the opposite parties were showing complaints repeatedly even after repair within a short span of three months of purchase. This shows that the product supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant is a defective product.
Sec 2(37) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 defines Product Seller
Section 2(37) “ Product seller”, in relation to a product, means a person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or otherwise is involved in placing such product for commercial purpose and includes-
(i) a manufacturer who is also a product seller; or
(ii) a service provider,
But does not include-
(a) a seller of immovable property, unless such person is engaged in the sale of constructed house or in the construction of homes or flats;
(b) a provider of professional services in any transaction in which, the sale or use of a product is only incidental thereto, but furnishing of opinion, skill or services being the essence of such transaction;
(c) a person who-
(I) acts only in a financial capacity with respect to the sale of the product;
( II) is not a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, direct seller or an electronic service provider;
(III) leases a product, without having a reasonable opportunity to inspect and discover defects in the product, under a lease arrangement in which the selection, possession, maintenance, and operation of the product are controlled by a person other than the lessor;]
On the basis of the above findings we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties were deficiency in service on their part and opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the acts. Hence point No.1 and 2 are found in favor of the complainant, we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
1). The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the Voltas
Combo Refrigerator Cum Freezer in to a perfect working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant failing which to give a replacement of the product within the same type product or to give Rs.31,900/- within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order.
2). The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.5,000/- for the mental
agony and sufferings with cost Rs.1,000/-.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amounts will carry 6% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of August, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
By Order
Assistant Registrar
